Is Fukushime in meltdown??

Man, this is worrying. What are we not being told here.?

A Serious Meltdown is Underway? The Fukushima Daiichi Plant No. 2 Nuclear Reactor Fuel is Missing

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 nuclear reactor fuel is missing from the core containment vessel.1 Where did it go? Nobody knows. Not only that but the “learning curve” for a nuclear meltdown is as fresh as the event itself because “the world has never seen anything like this,” Never.

yes, it is, and it has been since 11 march 2011.

Near-Total Meltdown of Fukushima Reactor 2 Confirmed

At least 70 percent of nuclear fuel inside one of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant melted down following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, bringing the total of reactors which experienced meltdowns to three, according to a Japanese research team. In fact, it's possible that 100 percent of the fuel inside reactor 2 may have melted during the disaster, the researchers said over the weekend in Osaka, where they presented the results of their ongoing investigation. The team from Nagoya University and Toshiba Corp. investigated reactor 2 using muons—particles which are deflected by nuclear materials.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Man, this is worrying. What are we not being told here.?

A Serious Meltdown is Underway? The Fukushima Daiichi Plant No. 2 Nuclear Reactor Fuel is Missing

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 nuclear reactor fuel is missing from the core containment vessel.1 Where did it go? Nobody knows. Not only that but the “learning curve” for a nuclear meltdown is as fresh as the event itself because “the world has never seen anything like this,” Never.

I hate to read "Learning Curve" and "Nuclear Meltdown" in the same sentence.

Scary stuff. Seems like the climate change people would be all over this.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Seems like the climate change people would be all over this.

They are probably reeling from the latest RICOgate

a reply to: Soloprotocol

It is true that we have never had an actual meltdown. If this is the true it is not good.

As I understand it, if the highly concentrated fuel rods melt and get hot enough, they can burn through the earth's crust potentially striking the water table whereupon a radioactive steam geyser will be produced.

Quite Scary i'll add as well

a reply to: Soloprotocol
It's a terrible disaster but that article you cited is awful. Here is the source it cites:

www3.nhk.or.jp...
That source does confirm a meltdown but it says nothing about the fuel leaving the containment vessel as the article says.

It was already known years ago that there was a meltdown. Here is a 2 year old report showing fuel melted through the reactor pressure vessel, and some of it is pooled at the bottom of the containment vessel:



Now they are apparently saying all of it may have left the reactor pressure vessel, but I can't find an original source saying it left the containment vessel, which is that black circular line just under the bottom part of the melted fuel in the right hand view. Even if the fuel melted through that round black line which is the steel containment vessel, there is still quite a bit of concrete under that.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Soloprotocol

It is true that we have never had an actual meltdown. If this is the true it is not good.

Three mile Island was a meltdown but it was contained, for the most part. About 90% of the fuel cladding failed and about half the fuel melted. There were some small releases of radioactivity, but nothing like fukushima.

Three Mile Island

The proximate cause of the meltdown remains unknown and no proof of negligence was ever uncovered.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Does this mean Godzilla is coming?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well it has had quite a while now to melt down through whatever is there.

I assume it becomes readily apparent shortly after it breaches the last of the containment and I doubt that could be kept quiet.

Better down than out. Only fear I had over this was hitting a waterbed and exploding a chunk of earth underground. If it reaches towards the core at any point it'll slosh around with liquid Iron, but I don't know enough to say if that's even possible.

Yah, it melted through an is down there, somewhere. It isn't molten anymore, but still hotter than hell due to ongoing low level fission and also emitting enormous amounts of radiation. Since they are dumping water on it to keep it cool to prevent re-criticality, steady amounts of nuclides are being washed away with the runoff from the pumped water and rain storms when they occur.

Thats why they built these things on the beach, so a ready supply of water could be used to cool and the waste be flushed away in case of an accident.

They were filling cooling tanks with the runoff, but I heard some time back they were running out of space to put more tanks…

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Better down than out.

They built them at sea level, the only down is… out to sea. The reactors themselves were fractured with cracks from a megaquake, hammered by a Tsunami and multiple explosions.

The stuff got out.

a reply to: intrptr

Much of Texas is close to sea-level, but you wouldn't say anything going down would wind up in the sea. It is very freaking close to one, so you're likely correct, but I don't know that to be certain.

Why don't they, build a giant spacecraft, and send the powerplant into space, then blow it up? Send it all the way to Pluto so no debris will fall back to Earth. Then we can harvest back some metal from asteroids or the debris(assuming radiation is sucked into space) into Earth in a new Space Age.

a reply to: makemap

in a nutshell...
its probably not in the power plant anymore,
and no body knows what to do.

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: makemap

in a nutshell...
its probably not in the power plant anymore,
and no body knows what to do.

NASA oxygen technology remains the best and should be used in the ocean as well. Specifically Pacific Ocean. I mean we got people living in space which doesn't even provide air. If astronauts can get through the radiation barrier of earth, it means we can create barriers of radiation against people specifically on Earth. Why not get NASA build submarines and search ocean? How hard is that? Even start building radiation proof domes. Then we can get people build spacecrafts. It is all very simple. Teach citizen, they help build, filter and get rid of radiation poisoning on the planet. Even other countries will probably try and join up for it. The more people doing the simple work the faster it finishes. This should be our goal right now. Oh also get rid of the elite if they try to escape and sabotage stuff screwing the people of the planet over. They got no where to run to be honest. As Mars is lifeless and other planets are too far away.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

We saw it, it was called Chernobyl.

Could you imagine if the asteroid belt was once our home. We #ed that world up and left in in pieces as we moved on over to Mars. How's that planet looking? Uh, huh.

First we destroy our planet.
Than we destroy our atmosphere.
Only natural to destroy our oceans this time around.
Wonder what prospects Venus may bring us?

Look on the bright side, if nothing else, all those aliens lurking about eye balling our water resources have probably lost interest. Take that you aliens!

a reply to: Rosinitiate

I think Aliens found bigger planets than ours that have water. Why would they bother with Earth being low tech and have to fight 7 Billion people just for the planet? Plus I'm pretty sure they know we have planet destroying weapons right now seeing how America is killing everything on the planet through pollution and radiation.

I blame America because they allowed other countries to have nuclear plants, even after Chernobyl explosion and Three Mile island disaster.